top of page

By:

Abhijit Joshi

31 August 2024 at 3:39:24 pm

Battle for the Bow and Arrow

The Shiv Sena dispute before the Supreme Court is no longer just about MLAs and symbols, but about what legally defines a political party. AI generated image The fight over the Shiv Sena has moved well beyond Maharashtra’s familiar political theatre. In the Supreme Court, the dispute has narrowed to a question that is less dramatic on the surface but potentially far more consequential: what exactly makes a political party a political party? Is it the elected strength of its legislators? The...

Battle for the Bow and Arrow

The Shiv Sena dispute before the Supreme Court is no longer just about MLAs and symbols, but about what legally defines a political party. AI generated image The fight over the Shiv Sena has moved well beyond Maharashtra’s familiar political theatre. In the Supreme Court, the dispute has narrowed to a question that is less dramatic on the surface but potentially far more consequential: what exactly makes a political party a political party? Is it the elected strength of its legislators? The organisation outside the legislature? The party constitution on record with the Election Commission? Or some combination of all three? That question lies at the centre of the legal battle between the factions led by Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray. Two Claims Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, has defended the Election Commission’s February 17, 2023 decision, recognising the Shinde camp as the Shiv Sena and allotting it the bow-and-arrow symbol. The Thackeray faction has challenged that decision. The bench is also dealing with challenges connected to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s January 2024 decision on disqualification petitions. The Thackeray faction, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, has drawn a sharp distinction between the political party and its legislature wing. Its argument is a group of MLAs breaking away from the legislative wing does not automatically mean that the political party itself has changed hands. The party’s organisation, structure and identity cannot simply be equated with the numbers sitting in the Assembly. The Shinde faction says the dispute was never merely about legislators walking out. According to its argument, the rupture extended into the wider political organisation, with competing meetings, resolutions and claims of support from party workers and functionaries. The legislative split was, in its telling, only one visible part of a larger party-wide conflict. That distinction determines whether the Election Commission could legitimately intervene under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order and decide which rival faction represented the recognised political party. Kaul has argued that the Commission was entitled to consider the wider organisational dispute rather than treating the matter as a purely legislative rebellion. Constitutional Tussle The courtroom fight has also brought an old Shiv Sena document back into the spotlight. Kaul has relied heavily on the constitution placed on record with the Election Commission after the poll panel raised objections to the party’s earlier structure. The material before the court says the Commission had, in the late 1990s, pushed for a more democratic organisational structure, including changes to the manner in which party office-bearers were selected. The 1999 constitution subsequently went on record. The Shinde side says the 2018 constitution represented a significant departure from that structure. Its argument is that the later arrangement concentrated substantial authority in the party chief and relied extensively on nominated or appointed office-bearers rather than elected organisational bodies. It has also questioned why its leaders participated in the organisational structure created under the 2018 arrangement and did not object to it at the time. Kaul has further argued that the 2018 constitution relied upon by the Thackeray faction was not registered with the Election Commission, while the 1999 constitution was on the Commission’s record. This has become a significant element of the Shinde faction’s case. The Thackeray faction, meanwhile, has relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Subhash Desai matter to reinforce the distinction between a political party and its legislature party. The earlier judgment’s discussion about not conflating the political party with its legislature wing arose in the context of questions such as who could appoint the whip. It did not, according to the Shinde side, mean that the Election Commission must ignore legislative strength altogether when determining which faction represents a recognised political party. The Shinde side has also invoked the Sadiq Ali case, arguing that legislative majority remains a relevant consideration in a party-symbol dispute. The case has therefore increasingly begun to look like a legal examination of the Election Commission’s decision-making process. The Thackeray faction has questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction and the basis on which it concluded that there was a party-wide split. Its challenge effectively asks whether the Commission went too far in examining the internal structure of the Shiv Sena. The Shinde faction argues that Article 324 gives the Election Commission broad powers and that, when two groups claim the same recognised party, the Commission has to examine the party constitution, organisational structure and available evidence to identify which group represents the party. The practical difficulty is obvious. The Election Commission cannot ask every Shiv Sena member whom they support. Nor can it conduct a referendum among every booth-level worker. Kaul has therefore defended the organisational-majority approach as a workable method of assessing cadre support through recognised organisational bodies and elected representatives. The Shinde camp has also brought the events after the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly election into the argument. Shiv Sena and BJP fought the election together, but the government subsequently formed under Uddhav Thackeray was with Congress and NCP. According to the Shinde side, that political realignment created discontent among sections of the Shiv Sena organisation and contributed to the eventual split. The Thackeray faction disputes the broader narrative and maintains that the legislative rebellion cannot simply be converted into proof that the political party itself changed hands. It has also challenged the Maharashtra Speaker’s decision not to disqualify MLAs from either faction. The Supreme Court has examined questions about what could follow if that decision were set aside, including whether consequential disqualification could arise under the Tenth Schedule. Party recognition and legislative disqualification arise under different legal frameworks. The Shinde side has argued that earlier cases concerning disqualification cannot simply be transplanted into the Election Commission’s determination under the Symbols Order. The real question is no longer simply who has more MLAs. It is whether those MLAs, the party organisation, the constitution and the cadre can legally be treated as parts of the same answer. (The writer is a political observer. Views personal.)

Maharshi Vyasa: The Sage Who Shaped India's Intellectual Heritage

Writer: Shreesh Deopujari
Shreesh Deopujari
Aug 1
3 min read

The Sanskrit saying "Vyasocchistam Jagatsarvam" is widely quoted, yet few understand its true meaning. Here, ucchista means "that which has been contemplated, expounded upon, or touched by his wisdom." The saying affirms that there is no subject Maharshi Vyasa did not illuminate, reflecting the universality of his intellect and his enduring influence on India's intellectual and cultural heritage. It is among the highest tributes ever paid to Maharshi Vedavyasa.


In the Indian literary tradition, Maharshi Vyasa was not merely a sage but the architect of a vast literary tradition. India's knowledge systems, culture, and literature are incomplete without him.


Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya honoured him with the celebrated verse:

"Namo'stu te Vyasa visala-buddhe

Phullaravindayata-patra-netra |

Yena tvaya Bharata-taila-purnah

Prajvalito jñanamayah pradipah||"


"Salutations to you, O Vyasa of vast intellect, whose eyes resemble the petals of a fully blossomed lotus. By you, the lamp of knowledge, filled with the oil of the Mahabharata, has been kindled to illuminate humanity."


Compilation of the Vedas

Vyasa divided the Vedas into four collections—Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda—each organised into numerous branches. According to Sage Patanjali's Mahabhashya, the Vedas originally comprised 1,131 branches, each containing four sections: Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka, and Upanishad.


More than an editorial undertaking, this was a monumental effort to preserve and systematise India's ancient wisdom. For this reason, Vyasa is revered as the Adi Guru, the primordial teacher of the Indian guru-disciple tradition.


Mahabharata’s Verses

Maharshi Vyasa's greatest literary achievement is undoubtedly the Mahabharata, comprising nearly one lakh verses. It is an encyclopaedia of human experience, encompassing righteousness and unrighteousness, justice and injustice, power, duty, love, sacrifice, family, governance, warfare, and spirituality.


The Mahabharata itself proclaims:

"Yad ihasti tad anyatra, yan nehasti na tat kvacit."


"Whatever is found here may be found elsewhere; what is not found here is found nowhere." Another hallmark of Vyasa's writing is its unwavering objectivity. He portrayed with equal honesty the vow of Bhishma, the generosity of Karna, the wisdom of Vidura, the self-respect of Draupadi, the righteousness of Yudhishthira, and the arrogance of Duryodhana. As a result, the Mahabharata is not merely a historical epic but also one of the greatest studies of human psychology. Its brightest jewel is the Bhagavad Gita. In dispelling Arjuna's despondency, Lord Krishna presented a profound synthesis of Karma (action), Jnana (knowledge), and Bhakti (devotion), a philosophy that continues to inspire thinkers around the world.


Puranas’ Author

Maharshi Vyasa is traditionally regarded as the author of the eighteen Mahapuranas. Through works including the Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana, Skanda Purana, and Markandeya Purana, he presented the philosophical truths of the Vedas in narrative form, making them accessible to ordinary people. These texts remain repositories of spiritual wisdom and guides to ethical living.


Vyasa also composed the Brahma Sutras, the foundational aphorisms of the Vedanta school of philosophy and is therefore regarded as its principal founder. Among the Prasthanatrayi—the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras—he authored one of its three foundational texts.


Even in an age of science, technology, and artificial intelligence, the fundamental questions of human life remain unchanged—duty or self-interest, power or service, wealth or contentment. Vyasa's works continue to offer enduring answers to these timeless dilemmas. His literature transcends every age, sect, and geographical boundary, belonging to all humanity. Revered as one of the Chiranjivis, he not only defined righteousness and duty but also showed humanity the true art of living.


Guru Purnima

The full moon day of the month of Ashadha, believed to be Maharshi Vyasa's birth anniversary, is celebrated as Guru Purnima or Vyasa Purnima. Hindu tradition reveres him as the Jagadguru—the Universal Teacher. The day is dedicated to honouring teachers and commemorating the enduring legacy of Maharshi Vyasa.


His original name was Krishna Dvaipayana. Born on an island (dvipa) in the sacred Ganga, he came to be known as Dvaipayana and, owing to his dark complexion, Krishna. By dividing the Vedas into four parts and establishing an organised tradition for preserving sacred knowledge, he earned the name Vedavyasa. He is also known as Badarayana through his association with the forest of Badari (jujube trees). Though known by different names, they all refer to the same illustrious sage.


Maharshi Vyasa was far more than an ancient seer. He was a visionary philosopher, an unparalleled literary genius, and the benefactor who preserved the Vedas, composed the Mahabharata, the Puranas, and the Brahma Sutras, and gave humanity the timeless wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita. Few individuals have shaped Indian civilisation as profoundly, and his influence on the intellectual heritage of humanity remains unparalleled.


(The writer is Akhil Bharatiya Prachar Pramukh of Samskrita Bharati.)

Comments

bottom of page